The US Army Guide That Teaches Soldiers To Recognise Terrorist Logos

Modern warfare is defined by ambiguity — and with it, soldiers (and training) have had to adapt. Posted online this week, a US Army document guides soldiers through the rigors of recognising terrorist and insurgent groups in the wild. Not through weaponry or language, but through branding.

Written by the US Army Training And Doctrine Command in 2009, this 60-odd page document (PDF) was designed to function, in the words of its creators, as "a hip pocket" reference book for soldiers in the field. Categorized by geography, it groups the logos and insignia of "insurgents, terrorists, paramilitary, and other militant groups worldwide." That includes everything from photos of Russian mafia tattoos to Hezbollah logos, as well as a thorough auxiliary list of branding from the "media wings" of each group. It's a visual taxonomy of terror.

The idea of "branding" insurgency is certainly nothing new. Crime and terror organisations have been borrowing ideas from corporations about graphic design and messaging for years — just ask David Friedman, a designer and photographer responsible for assembling this collection of terrorist logos. "I got to wondering what member of the terrorist organisation got to design it, and what tools he may have used," he told Gizmodo over email. "Did they have a copy of Adobe Illustrator? Or was it done freehand? The idea that terrorists actually have to work on their branding was intriguing."

Friedman's list splits logos into visual categories: Stars, animals with multiple heads, crossed guns, and the like. Incredibly, his collection got so much global attention that he ended up contacting the FBI after a thread about acquiring bomb-making materials sprang up in the comments section.

It turned out that, as a recruiting tool — especially an online one — iconography such as logos and even colorways have become incredibly important. "Their logo looks like it could be for a college sports team," he says of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, pointing out its similarity to Louisiana State University's football logo.

Unlike Friedman's approach, the US Army's guide splits logos into geographic categories. According to Artur Beifuss, author of the new book Branding Terror: The Logotypes and Iconography of Insurgent Groups and Terrorist Organisations, it isn't the most effective way to familiarise soldiers with the signs and symbols of the enemy. "Splitting up the groups by continent might be helpful," he explained to Gizmodo, "but it hides the fact that most of the groups are transnational and its supporters are active on all continents simultaneously — be it with or without logo."

But figuring out a way to familiarise thousands of armed forces with an ever-changing menagerie of organisations and alliances is a difficult task. "The research work done is great and they have logos in there that are not that easy to find," Beifuss said. "However, the document does not give any context to the logos/tattoos. Nor is it comprehensive."

The same basic problem has spurred the Army to develop sites like Fort Irwin's National Training Center, where 15 simulated towns give soldiers a chance to practice operating in confusing, often visually-ambiguous urban settings. That means hiring actors to play "roles" like local street food vendors and children. The whole point is to immerse soldiers in a realistically ambiguous field environment — where they won't have time to, say, pull out their "pocket guide" to terrorist iconography.

Similarly, the army reportedly offers a course called Combat Observation and Decision-making in Irregular and Ambiguous Conflicts (CODIAC), modelled after role-playing games, which involves "looking at the world through their eyes, walking in their shoes, and having a day in their skin," according to documents obtained by the website Public Intelligence. During the training course, soldiers are put into groups and asked to develop their own terrorist manifestos and strategies.

And yes — according to the description, that includes designing their own logos, too. [Leaksource; Quipsologies]

Trending Stories Right Now

After a rocky start with the Pixel 1 (which remains one of the ugliest phones made this decade), a big—but still not fully realised — improvement on the Pixel 2, the Pixel 3 came out and finally made good on Google’s homegrown phone initiative.
And unlike phones from Samsung or Huawei, the Pixel 3 achieved this not by hitting users over the head with tons of cameras or far-out hardware, it did it in the most Google way possible: With nifty software, intuitive design, and AI-powered smarts.

Mark Rober really loves to build things. So when this home electronics tinkerer discovered that some neighbourhood thieves were ripping off Amazon packages from his porch, he did what any self-respecting former NASA engineer would do: He built a glitter bomb made to look like a boxed-up Apple HomePod, and he built it to capture video of the entire thing.